Je veux savoir à propos de…

lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1

38600

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules
would increase energy use from water wasting showerheads and increase GHG
emissions because of the need to heat and pump excess water, increasing energy bills. Hall, No. 0048; Gooch, No.
0043; Shaw, No. 0059
DOE has fully considered these comments in this rulemaking as they relate to December 2020 Final Rules definition of showerhead. During the 2020 rulemaking, DOE discussed these comments and noted the importance of water conservation, but DOE focused solely on the Congressional reliance on ASME for the definitional changes. See 85 FR 81341, 81353. DOE believes that EPCAs purposes should also be considered when amending the definition of a covered product. DOE
agrees with the commenters that the December 2020 Final Rules showerhead definition and interpretation would likely increase water usage, increase associated energy use, and increase GHG emissions. These increases would be contrary to EPCAs purposes of reducing energy and water consumption. As such, DOE has tentatively determined that the December 2020 Final Rules definition should be withdrawn.
DOEs full consideration of comments received in the response to the August 2020 NOPR and of the purposes of EPCA has also informed this proposed approach of restoring the definition of showerhead from the October 2013
Final Rule. In response to the August 2020 NOPR, PIRG noted that DOEs past rules on this topic in 2011 and in 2013
had clearly taken account of the primary EPCA goal of decreased water use.
PIRG, No. 0082 at p.3 ASAP
commented that the definition from the 2013 Final Rule carried out the conservation purpose of EPAct 1992.
ASAP, No. 0086 at p.2
DOE also received comments on the impacts of the then-existing definition of showerhead and EPAct 1992
generally. Ruff explained that the water efficiency mandates in EPAct 1992 have helped drive down and conserve household water use. Ruff, No. 0010
Hamilton further commented that the then-current rules save consumers and water treatment jurisdictions money.
Hamilton, No. 0028 Cohen estimated that the then-current rule has saved billions of dollars in water and energy bills. Cohen, No. 0036 The City of Sacramento Department of Utilities City of Sacramento stated that, in California, as global temperatures rise, reduced winter snowpack will negatively impact local water availability, and drought frequency may increase. Efficient water use is the most cost-effective way to achieve long-term
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:30 Jul 21, 2021

Jkt 253001

conservation goals and ensure reliable water supply for future generations.
City of Sacramento, No. 0055 at p.3
Commenters also estimated the water use reductions of cities and states due to water efficiency measures. BAWSCA
estimated that since the 1992 federal adoption of the 2.5 gpm showerhead standard, its service area has saved more than 33.1 billion gallons of water with 2.2 billion gallons of water savings in 2020 alone as a result of savings from installing efficient 2.5gpm showerheads.
BAWSCA also explained that there are also additional benefits accumulating from the 2.2 billion gallons in avoided wastewater treatment and hot water savings and cost. BAWSCA, No. 0050 at p.2 The TWDB explained that the replacement of older showerheads with the current 2.5 gpm showerheads, under the October 2013 Final Rule definition of showerhead, was expected to save a cumulative 40,000 acre-feet of water in 2020 and 176,000 acre-feet in 2020 and reduce future municipal water demands of the state by approximately 610%.
TWDB, No. 0074 at p.1 And the City of Sacramento provided estimated savings from the 2.5 gpm flow rate and noted that in 2020 alone the City had saved 860 million gallons of water. City of Sacramento, No. 0055 at p.2
Numerous commenters also cited AWE estimates that 2.5 gpm showerheads provide 11 billion gallons per year in water savings and 5 trillion Btu per year in energy savings.
BAWSCA, No. 0050 at p.4; WVWD, No.
0051 at p.3; AWE, et al., No. 0079 at p.4
In ten years, the savings for 2.5 gpm showerheads at the federal standard alone accumulate to the equivalent of supplying 1 million homes with water and 670,000 homes with energy.
BAWSCA, No. 0050 at p.4; WVWD, No.
0051 at p.3; AWE, et al., No. 0079 at p.4;
Davis, No. 064 at p.1
DOE agrees with the commenters that the definition of showerhead from the October 2013 Final Rule and the associated interpretation resulted in significant water and energy savings, protected the environment, and reduced GHG emissions. As discussed above, while DOE focused on ASME in the 2020 rulemaking, DOE believes that the EPCAs purposes should also be considered when amending the definition of a covered product. As such, the definition of showerhead from the October 2013 Final Rule is consistent with the purposes of EPCA
for water and energy conservation, whereas the December 2020 Final Rules definition is not. Further, the definition of showerhead from the October 2013
Final Rule also corresponds with the general concept of the term
PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

showerhead in the 2010 Draft Interpretive Rule and 2011 Enforcement Guidance. While the specific language used by DOE has changed between the three documents, each documents definition considered all components attached to a single supply fitting/inlet to be a single showerhead. As explained previously, the October 2013 Final Rule understanding of showerheads better implements the purposes of EPCA than the December 2020 Final Rules definition. Accordingly, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed definition of showerhead better effectuates the purposes of EPCA.
Therefore, DOE proposes that, in withdrawing the definition of showerhead from the December 2020
Final Rule, the definition of showerhead from the October 2013
Final Rule be reinstated.
3. Congress Did Not Require Reliance on ASME for the Definition of Showerhead DOE thus tentatively departs from the view expressed in the December 2020
Final Rule that it would be more consistent with Congressional intent to rely on ASME for the definition of showerhead. 85 FR 81341, 81342. As discussed, that term is ambiguous, and DOE believes that the definition of showerhead from the October 2013
Final Rule better comports with the EPCAs purposes.
DOE does not believe Congress required reliance of the ASME
definition. Congress adopted the definition of showerhead in EPAct 1992, along with the provisions related to definitions, standards, test procedures, and labeling requirements for plumbing products. Pub. L. 102
486; Oct. 24, 1992 Sec. 123 EPAct 1992
and EPCA define the term showerhead as any showerhead including a handheld showerhead, except a safety shower showerhead.
42 U.S.C. 629131D In the same paragraph, Congress provided explicit direction to define the terms water closet and urinal in accordance with ASME A112.19.2M, but did not do so with respect to showerhead. Cf. Sec.
123b5 of Pub. L. 102486 Instead, for showerheads, Congress adopted the ASME standards only for the water conservation standard, test procedures, and labeling requirements. For those, Congress adopted ASME A112.18.1M
1989 as the applicable standard and required DOE to adopt the revised version of the standard, unless it conflicted with the other requirements of EPCA. 42 U.S.C. 6295j1 and 3;
42 U.S.C. 6293b7; 42 U.S.C.
6294a2E These Congressional
E:FRFM22JYP1.SGM

22JYP1